Roxanna’s little girl was killed two years ago Tuesday in Tucson at 10:10am by the same gunman that injured and almost killed Gabby Giffords. Roxanna’s daughter will never grow to adulthood. Neither will the 20 children killed in Newtown CT. Keep other wingnuts from doing the same thing by doing the following:

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines

Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”

Demand that your members of Congress and the president support these legislative priorities.

Our efforts cannot bring back the 20 innocent children murdered in Newtown, CT — or the 33 people murdered with guns every day in America. But we can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will. Sign the petition here. When people start stockpiling weapons, something is wrong with them and we need to know about it.

#DemandAPlan

Dusty

I am a..brown Cali bitch that is quite the opinionated,political, pain-in-the-ass, in your face kinda girl that also loves baseball and music to a fault.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.--Albert Einstein-*

2 Responses to “Demand a Plan”

Right on. I am glad Gabby & Kelly & Green are speaking up. They sure have paid their dues on the gun topic.
Here’s the thing– back in the day when the forefathers wrote the *right to bear arms* deal, then to be true to the constitution. let them have Muskets & flintlock pistols.
chck it–

Very well. My suggestion is the following. Allow for the unrestricted ownership and use of guns and ammunition as they existed in 1789, when the Constitution and its first ten amendments were written. This would conform EXACTLY to the intent of the framers. It would satisfy the 2nd Amendment freedom to “bear arms,” without allowing for any deviations from ‘strict interpretationalism’ that would excuse the weaseling in of ownership of semi-automatic and automatic guns, and anything beyond ball, shot and black powder for ammunition: no full metal jackets, no nitrocellulose propellant, no late 19th century cordite-filled cartridges, not even percussion caps (from about 1830). Just flintlocks.

If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it’s good enough for us.

You’ve misconstrued “back in the day”. First you need to understand where the “right to bear arms” is located… It’s in the Bill of Rights. Go to the official .gov transcripts and read.

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added (the Amendments): And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. “

Further, you need to read what is known as the Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in October 1787 “a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: — The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity — The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union — The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object — The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government — Its analogy to your own state constitution — and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property. “ Another words, to explain the purpose and reasons why the Constitution was written the way it was, including the Amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

You should also know the date that the amendments were ratified – December 15, 1791.

Page 84 states “To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself. “”Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. “On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

Meaning that the “Constitution” defines the three branches of Federal Government power, the rest defines the powers of the states and the “Amendments” are reservations of rights of citizens not surrendered to the Federal or State Governments.

The above confers that you do not understand the Constitution or the amendments (Bill of Rights). Nor do you understand the meaning of “shall no be infringed”
Lastly – making up words such as “ interpretationalism” does not help your cause.

Aromatherapy at it’s best from Daughters of Isis

Daughters of Isis, inc. is a genuine small business dedicated to a ‘hands on’ relationship with our creations so we can provide individual oriented customer care. We work organically in every dimension. We experience our personal growth and fulfillment in the creation and sharing of our products. We encourage customer insight so we might continually rebirth in service and product evolution. We listen to our clients / customers as they relate their experiences or needs to us, and then work to create unique blends / essences for them to work with.

To check out what they make and sell go to their site:

http://daughtersofisis.com/index.html

I use many of their products and find they help me out with my stress levels and homeopathic needs.